were Presiding Officers at Lutengo B and M and stated that they used steamer lamps at both polling stations. In her finding, the learned trial judge observed thus: “This evidence was manufactured to rebut the allegation by the petitioner’s witness. There is no explanation why the rest of the stations used torches or even vehicle headlamps, if the 2nd Respondent had provided sufficient light in the form of steamer lamps”. Counsel contend that the above holding is not based on the evidence of the 2nd Respondent’s witness. The witnesses did not say the Electoral Commission provided steamer lamps. According to counsel, they stated that what was used at the said stations were steamer lamps. Counsel were wondering why the learned trial judge accepted the use of car head lamps but rejected the use of steamer lamps! On the issue of “Disenfranchisement of voters at Gwafu I and II polling stations”, Mr. Lukwago responded as follows: First, according to counsel, it is not in dispute at all that the two polling stations, Gwafu I and II polling stations did not exist on the polling day. It is also not in dispute that the Electoral Commission issued voters’ cards to voters indicating that they were supposed to vote at the said polling stations. Counsel for the appellants do concede that the said polling stations were not even gazetted. Counsel Lukwago is wondering why counsel for the appellants do not offer any explanation as to why the said polling stations never existed on the polling day, let alone being gazetted! Secondly, Mr. Lukwago submitted that the contention that mere being in possession of voters’ cards that had been used in a previous voters’ registration process was not enough to prove that the polling stations had been removed on the polling day is therefore redundant. According to counsel, this is because there is no scintilla of evidence on record that the Electoral Commission made attempts to put them in place. Counsel pointed out that Makki, the Returning Officer of the Electoral Commission admitted during cross-examination that the two polling stations were non-existent. Mr. Lukwago submitted further that counsel for appellants contend that it is inconceivable that all persons disenfranchised were only the respondent’s supporters